Quora, Inc. v. Santosh Kalwar
Claim Number: FA1910001866468
Complainant is Quora, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer Golinveaux of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Santosh Kalwar ("Respondent"), Nepal.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kuora.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 12, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 11, 2019.
On October 14, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <kuora.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On October 21, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kuora.co. Also on October 21, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 14, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates a platform that includes a collaborative information-sharing and learning website and related mobile apps and services. Complainant has used the QUORA mark in connection with this platform since 2010. The platform has more than 300 million unique monthly visitors, approximately half of which are outside the United States. Complainant claims that QUORA is a fanciful
term invented by Complainant without a meaning in any language, and that the mark has become widely recognized worldwide based on longstanding and widespread use. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the QUORA mark in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <kuora.co> through a privacy registration service in July 2017. The domain name is being used for a website featuring question and answer services similar or identical to those featured on Complainant's website. Respondent also uses "Kuora" as the name for a mobile app that similarly mimics Complainant's app and website. Complainant states that Respondent is not an authorized licensee, distributor, retailer or subsidiary of Complainant, and has not been granted any license, permission, or other authorization to use its QUORA mark or a phonetic equivalent.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <kuora.co> is confusingly similar to its QUORA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <kuora.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered QUORA trademark, but for the substitution of the letter "K" for the phonetically similar "Q" and the addition of the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Ecolab USA Inc. v. Tomasz Kluz / Ekolab s.c. Tomasz i Aleksandra Kluz, FA 1386906 (Forum June 3, 2011) (finding <ekolab.info> confusingly similar to ECOLAB); Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. NA, FA 741852 (Forum Aug. 31, 2006) (finding <goldmansex.com> confusingly similar to GOLDMAN SACHS); Quora, Inc. v. Peter Smith, FA 1752999 (Forum Nov. 2, 2017) (finding <wwwquora.co> confusingly similar to QUORA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for what appear to be "copycat" versions of Complainant's website and mobile app, designed to create confusion among consumers seeking Complainant's platform. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Jukin Media, Inc. v. Dev Aleovss / Youeves, FA 1562258 (Forum June 19, 2014) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use of confusingly similar domain name for website mimicking complainant's popular YouTube channel).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name that is similar and phonetically equivalent to Complainant's well-known mark, and is using the domain name for a website that mimics Complainant's site, in a manner undoubtedly likely to create confusion among Internet users. Respondent is also using the same phonetic variation on Complainant's mark for a copycat mobile app. (The app does not appear to have been downloaded by many users, at least according to the Google Play listing page provided by Complainant.) Respondent's conduct is indicative of bad faith under the provisions of the Policy described above. See, e.g., Quora, Inc. v. Maurice A, FA 1848344 (Forum July 30, 2019) (finding bad faith under similar circumstances); Jukin Media, Inc. v. Dev Aleovss / Youeves, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kuora.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page